Supplemental Brief — Zicarelli v. New Jersey

-

a UR aaa are

ee ee ba

a YY

j

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1972

2.

—

Xe Pd -195

JOSEPH ZICARELLI,

SEP 21

Petitioner,

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Respondent.

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MICHAFL A. QUERQUES

Attomey for Petitioner

501 Central Avenue

Orange, New Jersey 07050

(201) 673-1400

(6306) LUTZ APPELLATE PRINTERS, INC.

Law and Financial Printing

South River, N.J. New York, N.Y. Philadelphia, Pa. Washington, D.C.

(201) 257-6850 (212) 565-6377 (215) 563-5587 (202) 783-7288

\ =

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EER ERE EET TRE EE TOTL TET eee Pee ere eS 1

ETE TERE ET Pee ee Te er ee 4

TABLE OF CITATIONS

Cases Cited:

Maryland v. Brown, 295 F. Supp. 63 (D.Md. 1969) ..... 4

People v. Jones, 108 Cal. Rptr. 345, 510 P.2d

pF Re eS PE UE ET er eee Tee er ee 1, 2, 3, 4

Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 92 S. Ct. 2163,

Pee CE oe ease eho hae ese oecees a 2,3

Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S.Ci.

1893, 26 L. Ed. 2d 446 (1970) ................. 2,3

Rule Cited:

ei ECO TERETE EEE CECT EET ER TCC CE 1

United States Constitution Cited:

Mimite Asm ww coo ck cee ne ccvsccivecceed 2,3

Fourteenth Amendment.................-22e000- 2,3

Other Authority Cited:

13 Cr. L. Rptr. 2293, July 4,1973.................. 2

ERASER As aera

EBT Shey

a "I enw Jig Haat Kak he 4

——

In The

Supreme Court of the Mnited States

October Term, 1972

,™

o

No.

JOSEPH ZICARELLI,

Petitioner,

US.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Respondent.

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON BEHALF OF

PETITIONER

To the Honorable, The Chief Justice

And the Associate Justices of the

Supreme Court of the United States

This supplemental brief is submitted by petitioner

pursuant to Rule 24(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court

in order to bring to the Court’s attention a_ highly

significant decision officially reported since the filing of

the petition in this case.

On June 5, 1973 the Supreme Court of California

decided People v. Jones, 108 Cal. Rptr. 345, 510 P.2d 705

(Sup. Ct. 1973). That decision was reported in 13 Cr. L.

Rptr. 2293 on July 4, 1973.

é

¥

é

;

t

i

%

rs

x

x

iy

%

SSM hy ee reelnatsg

In the Jones case the defendant had argued that the

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

entitled him to a jury drawn from the judicial district in

California wherein the crime with which he was charged

was alleged to have been committed. The defendant there

had been tried and convicted in a judicial district other

than where the crime was committed by a jury none of

whose members were drawn from the district of the crime.

Relying upon this Court’s decisions in Williams »,

Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed. 2d 446

(1970) and Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 92 S.Ct. 2163, 33

L.Ed. 2d 83 (1972), the court found it “abundantly clear

that the vicinage requirement as stated in the Sixth

Amendment, namely trial by a jury of the district wherein

the crime shall have been committed, is an essential feature

of jury trial preserved though changed by the Sixth

Amendment and made binding upon the states by the

Fourteenth Amendment.” 510 P. 2d at 709. The court

went on to state:

“Therefore a criminal defendant in a state criminal

prosecution has a constitutional right to be tried

by a jury drawn from, and comprising a

representative cross-section of, the residents of the

district wherein the crime _ shall have _ been

committed.” 510 P. 2d at 709.

Concluding the opinion the court once again

reemphasized and restated its holding as follows:

“To recapitulate, we hold that the Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution as interpreted in Williams and Peters,

guarantee a criminal defendant in a state trial the

right to be tried by an impartial jury comprising a

representative cross section of, and selected from

residents of, the judicial district where the crime

was committed.” 510 P. 2d at 712.

The landmark decision in People v. Jones, supra,

strongly reinforces the position advanced by petitioner in

the first point of his petition. As with the defendant in

Jones, petitioner was tried in a remote judicial district*

from the locale of the crime. Indeed, a comparison with

Jones will reveal that petitioner’s trial was much further

from the scene of the crime than was the situation in Jones

where the trial was in the same county but in another

district of the state judicial system. Petitioner was tried in

and with jurors drawn from “remote, rural Burlington

County, far removed from the urban Hudson County

locale of the crimes charged ”’ (Petitioner’s petition, p. 11).

The decision in petitioner’s case now stands opposed

to that of one of our most prestigious state courts. In

addition, the court in Jones also found it necessary to

grapple with the decision in Maryland v. Brown, 295

F.Supp. 63 (D.’ Md. 1969), relied upon by the court

below and discussed in petitioner’s petition. That the

questions involved are momentous and should be resolved

by this court is made clear by the 4-3 split among the

California Supreme Court in People v. Jones, supra.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons as well as the reasons set forth in the

petition, it is urged that this Petition for a Writ of

Certiorari be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL A. QUERQUES

Attorney for Petitioner

*In New Jersey the county is the only designated judicial district.